I promised Joshua of Post Libertarian almost a month ago that I would post this. As you can tell I’m rather far behind. You have no idea the complications you can run into in a circuit with less than 20 parts. Magnetic components will do that to you.

In any case here are Joshua’s views:

====

A couple weeks ago Simon said he was planning to vote for Ron Paul to “tweak the establishment Rs” even though he believed Paul’s foreign policy would be disastrous – particularly his plan to close down our hundreds of military bases around the world and bring all those troops home. I don’t agree with Paul on everything, either, but this particular position had always seemed like common sense to me. After reading Simon’s post I realized things might not be so straightforward. I found myself searching for reasons to defend Paul’s position, and Simon has graciously allowed me to do so in a guest post. Please note that I am not completely convinced of my argument, and I admit that Simon probably knows far more about this issue than I do, but I want to explain the reasons I am very skeptical of what seems to me to be “alarmist rhetoric,” in the hopes that Simon will respond and allow me to more properly evaluate my position.

They say power abhors a vacuum, and removing our troops from around the world would let another entity will fill that vacuum – perhaps one we don’t like. But that assumes our bases are still actually projecting power. What if they’re just taking up space?

Following the second devastating world war, global violence has been vastly declining. Stephen Pinker notes that “the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year” in the 2000s (in addition to great declines in homicides and genocides). As technology increases and democracy flourishes across the globe, many countries decide they would rather trade with each and become richer than fight and destroy resources (modern Keynesianism notwithstanding). Thomas Friedman has the “The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”, which used to say that “no two countries that both had a McDonald’s had fought a war against each other, since each got its McDonald’s.” It was technically proven wrong when NATO bombed Serbia, but Friedman argued that the war ended very quickly because of the capitalistic connections. It’s also mostly true that two democracies have never gone to war with each other, at least in recent history – although it depends on how you define “war” and “democracy”. The overall point is that as democracy increases and markets innovate, people would rather enjoy the fruits of the market than risk violence. People would rather go to McDonald’s or check Facebook than go to war.

But does all of this mean we no longer need thousands of troops stationed in bases around the world? There are plenty of countries – like Iran and North Korea – that are resisting the global tide. Even the Arab Spring is not guaranteed to yield democratic flowers in the world’s garden. Besides, some may even argue that our global bases caused the decline in violence over the last 60 years (though like most historical events with multiple factors, it might be hard to prove). There is still plenty of potential global instability in the world, so we must look at what benefits the United States receives from its bases and try to decide if they justify the costs.

So what are the costs of maintaining our bases around the world? Most directly, of course, there are the billions of dollars. It’s difficult to estimate how much of the Defense Department’s $700 billion or so annual budget is directly involved in maintaining overseas bases, but I found one estimate putting it around $250 billion a year. There are also more subtle consequences. One reason the military budget of the United States is almost as large as the rest of the world combined is that we end up subsidizing the effective budgets of other nations through our presence in their lands. Former Republican candidate Gary Johnson (now seeking the Libertarian nomination) has made the audacious claim that “Europe can afford its health system because the United States is paying for national defense there.” Is the United States subsidizing socialism in other countries by freeing up money for other forms of inefficient government meddling? CATO thinks so. They also argue that our bases in Japan damage that country’s independence even while allowing the Japanese to complain about the small part of the costs borne by themselves. CATO is predictably biased about this sort of thing, but I’d love to hear what’s wrong with their analysis.

Now let’s look at the benefits. If the United States is spending lots of money and propping up other government behavior around the world, what are we getting out of it all? Some say we are able to respond quicker to dangerous situations when they arise. But with modern technology we have drones and unmanned aircraft that can cover hundreds if not thousands of miles per hour (of course, they have other limitations, but the tradeoff is certainly far from a total loss). Some say we are able to use these bases for better hospitalization, such as flying injured troops from Iraq to Germany to stabilize them before bringing them back to the United States. But surely we don’t need troops in the five figures to run a hospital? If that’s the only way our allies will provide us a hospital then what kind of allies are they?

Others, including Simon, say that the bases act as deterrents for the more dubious governments around the world. Our bases in Japan are not for Japan; they are for China – or maybe North Korea. Our presence in Germany is not for Germany; it is for Russia. But what exactly do we suppose these troops are deterring? If one of these rogue states is going to drop an atomic bomb, these military bases aren’t going to do much about that. If they are going to engage in more traditional warfare and invade one of our allies, well, I think our allies are doing well enough on their own. The United States has almost 40,000 troops in Japan. But the Japan Self-Defense Forces have over 247,000 active troops and the country’s military expenditures rank 7th worldwide. We have over 53,000 troops in Germany. Germany’s military has over 200,000 active troops and the 6th largest expenditures in the world. I think these countries can defend the threats of non-democracies without us taking up space there and donating millions to their military budgets. As the Cold War collapsed, we closed 60% of our bases in the 1990′s, and the world did not erupt in violence. There is even less reason to believe such things would happen if we finished the closings today.

In summary, if our bases are supposed to protect fires from flaring up away from home, it seems to me that there are 1) not as many fires as there used to be, 2) more rich, democratic countries around the world with vested interests in keeping fires away from their homes, and 3) better technology that allows us to respond quicker to fires if and when we ever need to. Thus, my question: is all of this still worth the cost? Those who say we still need all these bases are afraid of bad guys expanding their power. Those who say we don’t still need them are afraid of the “military industrial complex” hastening the end of our “empire.” There are fearful catastrophes in either path that make it difficult to apply normal risk assessments, and it’s why I hesitate to make a strong claim either way, especially when there is far too much that I don’t know. But these are the reasons I am not nearly as afraid as some that disaster would unfold if we finally stopped the sun from “never setting” on our military.

Thanks again to Simon for the opportunity to make this post; I look forward to his response. If you like my style feel free to check out my blog at postlibertarian.com.

Share